In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 GEORGE M. ERNST, JR. d/b/a MANY INTERESTED SAVERS, INC.
 P. O. Box 361
 at Georgetown, KY 40324-0361

 P.S. Docket No. 13/88;  

 11/18/83

 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 HildaRosenberg, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 John C. Anggelis, Esq.
 Anggelis & Philpot
 139 Market Street
 Lexington, KY 40507-1176

Respondent has filed a Motion to Modify and/or Revoke False Representation Order Nos. 82-112 and 82-121. Respondent contends it has revised its program and requests that a hearing be held in Lexington, Kentucky, to take evidence on whether the False Representation Orders should be modified and/or revoked.

Complainant opposes Respondent's Motion on the grounds that no evidence of any kind has been submitted to support the Motion. Complainant also opposes Respondent's request for a hearing and the request that the hearing be held outside the Washington, D.C. area.

As Complainant argues, the bare assertion that a program has been revised is insufficient to support revocation and/or modification of a False Representation Order. See Rejuvnir, Inc., P.S. Docket No. 3/105 (P.S.D. on Motion for Recon., Jan. 30, 1975). While a hearing on a motion to modify or revoke may be appropriate, it will not be held until it is shown by the party seeking the hearing that there are genuine issues of fact in dispute. Such a showing has not been made in this case.

Accordingly, Respondent's Motion for Modification and/or Revocation and Respondent's request for a hearing are denied without prejudice.

Complainant has suggested in its reply to Respondent's Motion that the parties explore the possibility of a stipulation which may obviate the need for further proceedings. Complainant's suggestion is well taken. Any refiled motion for modification and/or revocation will be expected to contain (1) a showing that the parties have made a good faith effort to resolve this matter through stipulation; (2) evidence of the revised program in the form of attachments to the motion; and (3) an explanation of how the program has been modified to remedy the features which were found to violate 39 U.S.C. § 3005.

A request for a hearing will be expected to state with specificity the issues of fact in dispute, the testimony intended to be offered at the hearing, and the witnesses intended to be called with a reasonably detailed statement of the intended testimony of each witness. In addition, if Respondent desires to have the hearing held outside the Washington, D.C. area, it should include in its request the remainder of the information required by 39 C.F.R. § 952.15.